quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent.
If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters.
Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical.

If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too.

quote:

So any law passed by Congress or the states would have to live up to the whole amendment. Not just chunks of it.

quote:

That would be a public financing amendment. That is a very different thing. This amendment would still allow private funding of campaigns but allow limits to be imposed again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent.
If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters.
Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical.
If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too.

That's not a problem at all -- a ratio doesn't care how large or small the numbers that created it might be.
In other words, it would self-adjust for population density.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent.
If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters.
Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical.
If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too.

States have passed laws requiring compact districts. When actually implemented that has dealt effectively with gerrymandering.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

because the powers that be will simply ignore and circumvent them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

So any law passed by Congress or the states would have to live up to the whole amendment. Not just chunks of it.

Why would it have to?

quote:


Because of courts. Have you ever heard of them?

quote:

Well hey, just as long as only my corporation is liable for the manslaughter and debts it in incurs, from which it and I can heavenly profit and allows us both to have million$...er mountains more free speech in the bank then you, the great unwashed...we'll be alright.

This is capitalism kinkroids...fuck your democracy. I should be able to buy the all of the 'free speech' [sic] and the best govt, I want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

because the powers that be will simply ignore and circumvent them.

Not will . . . could . . . it is the difference between pessimism and prudence.

As for arrogance, I've been getting that from you ever since I joined these boards. I believe the first time I noticed it was the time you got all pissy because I dissed Catcher in the Rye (and my opinion on that hasn't changed on that - it still sucks).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Well hey, just as long as only my corporation is liable for the manslaughter and debts it in incurs, from which it and I can heavenly profit and allows us both to have million$...er mountains more free speech in the bank then you, the great unwashed...we'll be alright.

This is capitalism kinkroids...fuck your democracy. I should be able to buy the all of the 'free speech' [sic] and the best govt, I want.

I have no idea if your a sarcastically agreeing with me or sarcastically (and erroneously) disagreeing with me. There has been a weird spate of presumption lately - criticizing Christians apparently means excusing Muslim malfeasance and now, distrusting government apparently means you want to suck off the corporations or something like that. What really baffles me is that repeated explanation that an erogenous explanation has occurred falls on deaf ears.

The President is giving his Isis speech now so . . . later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Why are you under the impression that all investors are invested in large corporations?

quote:

Why would I give a fuck what you think of a book?

quote:

Well given that the govt. is right in bed with the corporation having created it, endowed it with constitutional rights, the pleasure of which are not only enjoying profits but shields it from the deaths it may cause and any debt it may amass beyond the original contribution while profiting immensely and amassing $billion of free speech and thus political rights that far outweigh the great capitalist proletariat free speech rights, [it] the ruling (investor) class...couldn't be happier.

quote:

Oh and to finally answer the question posed...NO, property (money) is NOT speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
I disagree. People have a tendency to equate speech with thought and use the two words interchangeably but there is an important difference. Thought is what is contained in our head, speech is the ability to make our thoughts heard. When the human race first evolved, actual speech - i.e. flappin' our lips - was (along with body language) pretty much the only means we had of making our thoughts known, and then only to those within hearing distance. Today the action of making our thoughts known to larger numbers of people - the speech in "free speech" - includes books, radio, television, the internet and more. In order to use these things (in order to make even more people hear your thoughts) money is required.

quote:

That's your foundational error. You're equating speech with the press. Speech is free in the economic sense. The press costs money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's your foundational error. You're equating speech with the press. Speech is free in the economic sense. The press costs money.

You're not making any sense and I think it's because you are reflexively disagreeing.

I am, for the purposes of this issue, defining speech as the ability to make your thoughts known to others - whether it is by talking to the person next to you, writing a letter to the editor, posting on an internet message board or making a campaign commercial. Obviously some means reach a greater number of people than others and generally speaking, the more people you want to reach the more it is going to cost you. So, yes, the press cost money . . . and the wealthy can buy more than the poor.

Which is, I thought, the whole point of this amendment - to level the playing field a little. We are not in disagreement on that point. Our disagreement is on how trusting to be of the people who get to "interpret" what the amendment "really" means. I have already made this distinction clear several times, starting with my first post. So where exactly is this error?

quote:

reread you own post." books, radio, television, the internet and more" that stuff is the press not speech.

quote:

This amendment would restrict how political money is raised not how it is spent.